Moderators: Aesthetics, Drones, Hexagon Sun
MrMessiah wrote:Haha, I think they'd be more annoyed at being called "the scottish Orbital", given that's one of the reasons they hid they were brothers at the start, to avoid that associationBunnyRabbit wrote: they would either be a bit peeved or downright annoyed that this would get associated with what they, the scottish Orbital, had planned.
cool shit! (if somewhat inconclusive...) how long did this take to compute?ilzmastr wrote:After sufficient testing, my results indicate that it is highly unlikely that BoC are reusing a 3 member OTP on the 36 digit code (unlikely and not impossible, since the 36 digit code is not completely known yet). the most legible results of my brute force crack are here:
What I did:
Basically I assumed that every 2 digits of the 36 digit code constituted 1 member of the final message (to represent every letter of the alphabet with a number in you have to use at least 2 digits), and I tried all combinations of 3 member pads (00,00,00 to 26,26,26 [no more is needed, bunch of redundancy if you do until 99,99,99]) repeating throughout the BoC code, and then searched the fragments of each of those outputs against the Oxford dictionary and a little BoC list.
(for the unknown 5th BoC code portion i just assumed 01,01,01 - so I tested: [69,97,42,62,83,15,71,72,28,93,65,57,01,01,01,51,92,25])
haha this is awesomeKen Cosgrove wrote:New code found on a pub jukebox in Southern England, embedded within another song.
Welcome.Parupanei wrote:Hey guys!
First time posting right here, please don't hate the n00b I'm going to introduce myself properly on a dedicated topic.
So, a wild theory:
A Wow! signal was detected in 1977. It's alphanumerical whatever code is 6EQUJ5. E is fifth letter in english alphabet, Q is 17th, U 21st and J is 10th. Maybe there is some connection with the first digit in Q,U and J. I don't know, just thought it might be worth a shot. At least I popped my Twoism cherry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal
Also I appologise so much if this has been mentioned before, although I've been reading last few days' posts and did not see anything similar.
I don't think you can assume that the same pad is reused for the 6 numbers.ilzmastr wrote:After sufficient testing, my results indicate that it is highly unlikely that BoC are reusing a 3 member OTP on the 36 digit code (unlikely and not impossible, since the 36 digit code is not completely known yet). the most legible results of my brute force crack are here:
I bamlem jack bauer.Ken Cosgrove wrote:New code found on a pub jukebox in Southern England, embedded within another song.
could be. similar thing i thought of was if the numbers are arranged vertically like this,re-phaelam-ed wrote:/ = divided by.
could that be used some way?
Waz wrote:I bamlem jack bauer.Ken Cosgrove wrote:New code found on a pub jukebox in Southern England, embedded within another song.
Not sure if I've missed something about what you're trying to rule out ilzmastr, but the point of a (properly-done) message encrypted with a one-time-pad is that you couldn't rule out the decryption keys, because the pad/key will be long enough that your guesses would produce EVERY possible message. You could run through every possible decryption, and you'd find the messages "MILEY C", "BIEBER", "COFFEE" and "DEMONS" in your output. The point is that without the correct pad, you wouldn't know which one is the message you're after.
You're talking about something different (attacks on large datasets encrypted with smaller keys). We're talking about one-time pads here, which done correctly mean that you can't reduce your guesses. Try every possible combination and all you'll get is every possible six-letter string.BunnyRabbit wrote:Waz wrote:I bamlem jack bauer.Ken Cosgrove wrote:New code found on a pub jukebox in Southern England, embedded within another song.
Not sure if I've missed something about what you're trying to rule out ilzmastr, but the point of a (properly-done) message encrypted with a one-time-pad is that you couldn't rule out the decryption keys, because the pad/key will be long enough that your guesses would produce EVERY possible message. You could run through every possible decryption, and you'd find the messages "MILEY C", "BIEBER", "COFFEE" and "DEMONS" in your output. The point is that without the correct pad, you wouldn't know which one is the message you're after.
You can brute force a crib to unlock the whole thing if you can guess one thing that is in the plain text and have an idea that the technique used isn't based on a random pad.
was just thinking...lets say someone guesses the 6th num. it probably wont do anything till they enable whatever it is supposed to reveal. everything is probably timed. the release date is set. that wont change. it will either be the release date...or we'll be sitting with 6 nums till they let us know what its for.Waz wrote:You're talking about something different (attacks on large datasets encrypted with smaller keys). We're talking about one-time pads here, which done correctly mean that you can't reduce your guesses. Try every possible combination and all you'll get is every possible six-letter string.BunnyRabbit wrote:Waz wrote:I bamlem jack bauer.
Not sure if I've missed something about what you're trying to rule out ilzmastr, but the point of a (properly-done) message encrypted with a one-time-pad is that you couldn't rule out the decryption keys, because the pad/key will be long enough that your guesses would produce EVERY possible message. You could run through every possible decryption, and you'd find the messages "MILEY C", "BIEBER", "COFFEE" and "DEMONS" in your output. The point is that without the correct pad, you wouldn't know which one is the message you're after.
You can brute force a crib to unlock the whole thing if you can guess one thing that is in the plain text and have an idea that the technique used isn't based on a random pad.
